I've enjoyed posting & debating here over the past couple of months. It has been profitable to myself, if to no one else. I've made real progress in my understanding of many things. I thank everyone who has either defended me or opposed me, on whatever occasion & regarding whatever issue.

I have a focus now and I intend to pursue it. My time is limited and I have a lot to do, so I will post here only rarely, if at all, in the foreseeable future. Thanks again to those who engaged with me in discussion of these interesting & important issues. Best wishes to all.

(V): "The Conservative party over here has promised (or so their leader has.... that if the Conservatives get into power they will open up and publish all the UK secret UFO info."

If only these parties would actually deliver on their promises. lol Alas, the con game continues.... though hopefully a greater percentage of people are waking up....

GoodTimeCharlie: "I just don't want others trying to cram it down my throat"

Actually, I was responding in good faith to questions you asked, as it turns out, in bad faith. You are welcome to ignore everything I post. I'm not holding you down & forcing your mouth open.

Artful Dodger: "Of course, I'll just stick to the right wing nut's websites. Think I'll find anything there?"

Try Jack Blood, Alex Jones (PrisonPlanet & InfoWars), G. Edward Griffin (FreedomForce), etc. These people are Libertarians. Or try reading some Ron Paul stuff. :o)

But you're right, the Neo-Con websites will have a different view. But while they will improperly defend a Fascist like Bush, they will also properly accuse, say, Rhodesian socialists like Clinton or Obama, which accusations the liberals will reject.

We go 'round in circles...and only the few will escape the Matrix. Most take the blue pill and go back to sleep, annoyed at being stirred from their slumber in the first place.

Artful Dodger: You guys are having a field day with this one. lol

Ok, let's assume he didn't say it, for the sake of argument. But you said this:

"My criticism must be true or based on truth."

True. The question then is, does Bush in fact despise the Constitution? Did his actions while in office provide overwhelming evidence of that? Did he undermine the Constitution, oversee the gutting of its Bill of Rights, and otherwise act as if he were not bound by it, in true dictatorial style?

Yes, he did. So whether he said these words in actuality is not very relevant. I think he probably did, but then I wasn't there. And they are only words, after all. What he DID, however, is very relevant.

I expect now you'll want a list of things he did to undermine the Constitution, with links to supporting evidence, etc.

But really, so much information is out there, the evidence is so complete, that if you don't recognize it already, nothing I could post could change your mind.

Like Charlie the good time guy, or whatever he calls himself now, he already is enlightened. Why trouble him further? :o)

GoodTimeCharlie: "I was being facetious, thanks anyways, I wasn't even close to being serious about those questions
I certainly don't need people trying to pump ideas or "enlighten me" , even though you may think so.
A.D., maybe renaming this The propaganda or special agenda board would be a better fit"

That's a good point. Maybe you better stick to the nightly news, where you are more likely to receive fair & balanced coverage. It's the enlightened thing to do. Or maybe you have an even better source? God forbid you be propagandized. But it's good to know there is not much risk of that happening with you.....you are so above that. lol

GoodTimeCharlie: "Maybe I am one of "their" agents and have been assigned here to counter you and the usurper"

You're doing remarkably well. You deserve a promotion. :o)

Artful Dodger: "I've seen nothing to indicate that this is true. Got any hard facts?"

The only facts I have is the report itself. I have no reason to doubt its verity, just as I have no reason to doubt the verity of the report issued by the ACLU about 21 homicides via torture in our American gulags. As you say (on the quote about the Constitution) Bush hasn't denied it. Of course he may just be 'above' such things. lol Could I swear on my life it is true? No. I couldn't swear on my life that there is a continent named Africa, either...as I haven't actually set foot on it. And who knows...even if I DID set foot on it, maybe somebody tricked me, and the world map is falsely drawn. Let's look carefully at the source, and see if it is pro-Republican or pro-Democrat.

I googled "bush it's a goddamned piece of paper" and here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+it%27s+a+goddamned+piece+of+paper&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


By the way, when I say Bush is indefensible, I don't mean he doesn't have a right to a defense, contrary to your insinuation. I just mean that, in my opinion, his defense won't stand up. Please remember I'm the one who thinks people deserve fair trials...whereas you're the one who thinks prisoners should be murdered upon capture to avoid the annoyance & expense of having to house & feed them, etc.

(V): This is something you really ought to see. It is 2 hours at the National Press Club Conference in Washington. It is about UFOs and ETs. I downloaded & watched. No frills, just heavy duty testimony.

http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


-----------------------------
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the [U.S.A. Patriot Act] could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a godd**n," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd**ned piece of paper!"
-----------------------------------

No need to defend Bush here. He is indefensible, just as are many Democratic presidents who likewise manifested disdain for the Constitution they took an oath to uphold & defend.

"There are two kinds of capitalism: Competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism. The first is good for everyone. The second is good for only the monopolists. Incidentally, monopoly capitalism is the foundation of collectivism. All monopoly capitalists forge partnerships with government as the way in which they maintain their monopolies. They love socialism, communism, neo-conservatism, and all other variants of collectivism, as you no doubt have observed from present-day elitists, all of whom are collectivists."
--G. Edward Griffin

This is posted as a defense of competitive capitalism as well as an argument against monopoly capitalism.

Artful Dodger: "Stupid incompetent public servants."

Those are good examples, among many thousands more & growing daily. I would only suggest that the so-called "public servants" are not really stupid or incompetent. Some at the lower levels do really believe all this regulation is somehow for the "greater good of the greater number," (a Marxist principle when coercion - i.e., laws - is utilized to achieve it) misinformed as they are. But at the higher levels, it is by design, not ignorance.

The reason I mention the 'incompetence' part is because of this excellent article I recently read, called:

THE US GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL ITS MISSION
IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA
http://freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=FEMA_Katrina&refpage=issues


The point therein is very well made that the government precisely & effectively succeeded in its mission....only that mission is not what most consider it to be.

Czuch: "It cant be both.... we are free yet enslaved at the same time?"

Sure it can be. Just ask yourself what you need the government's permission to do now. And what the government does not permit you to do, whether or not you ask for it. Now compare that to what Americans in the past did not need permission for, and you begin to see the incremental progress of enslavement. Keep in mind, asking permission means you are not free, even if the permission is granted. What is granted can also be denied. And also observe, the chains are thickening, not weakening. Some slavery arrives instantly; some approaches gradually, so that we, as frogs, don't notice the water heating up....or if we do, it doesn't burn enough all at once to make us react.

Czuch: "So are they fighting for an end game, or have they already achieved it?"

Precisely, they are fighting for an End Game. Had they achieved it already, you and I wouldn't be free to discuss it right now.

"So they use different tactics for the same results? The whole point is to make us weak, and then hammer us with a new world order?"

That is correct.

Czuch: "I still want to hear V explain to me how it is okay to regulate banks because they took our money, but we are not allowed to regulate individuals who take our welfare? IE drug tests, or why not even regulating their reproduction as well?"

I'm afraid both the handouts (to rich & poor) & the regulations (of banks & welfare recipients) rather prove we are in a collectivist society. And I'm afraid one can't approve of either without being a collectivist. Not only are we not safe, we are already enslaved. The chains are just not so apparent yet in everyone's lives.

Czuch: "If this is true, we are actually in a good place, with half liberals and half conservatives, both fighting against the others, actually keeping either one from completing their objectives!!!!"

Unfortunately, the so-called Conservatives & so-called Liberals are not really competing. Thay are on the same side and the enemy is YOU.

That's the point I am making that somehow you continually fail to acknowledge, let alone deny.

Czuch: "I mean, under a dictatorship, very few people win, so why would so many be in conspiracy to help make a dictatorship, if they have no benefits from it?"

By this reasoning, any dictatorship would be ruled out, wouldn't it? But we know from the historical record, and from present conditions, that dictatorships are quite common.

Clearly, those who conspire to establish dictatorship DO receive benefits from it, or at the very least, believe they will. Consider Nazi Germany. To be an SS Officer was to benefit. To be a scientist was to benefit. To be a Nazi propagandist was to benefit. To be a member of the ruling Party was to benefit. There are many benefits to participating in a dictatorship, provided one has no qualms & is able not only to willingly sacrifice his own freedom but also willing to sacrifice and/or expunge the freedoms of others.

GoodTimeCharlie: One thing to add about recapturing the Centers of Power as essential to any effective strategy, consider this:

The American Revolution was won by strength of arms. However, our Founding Fathers & like-minded Patriots controlled the centers of power in America, the local governments, the newspapers, the businesses...in short, they were in position to LEAD the masses in revolt against England. This was not a so-called Marxist type of revolution, from the bottom up. (Which actually is a misnomer, since it is always elites leading the pack & stirring the masses in Marxist revolutions also) It was revolution by the leadership of American society, who skillfully brought the people to its Cause.

The chief distinction of the American revolutionists is the worthiness of their great Cause. It was the cause of Liberty based on the model of Individualism, i.e., rights are inherent to the individual, governments are secondary, deriving authority only by the informed consent of the governed, and established for the minimal purpose of protecting the rights of the individual, etc.

But, again, without first controlling the power centers, the revolution would have been impossible or would have devolved into anarchy followed by despotism.

Czuch: Until you recognize that the Neo-Cons are just as Big Government & Socialist as the Democrats, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. People on both sides of the political spectrum need to recognize they've been conned & psychologically programmed...and to come clean, learn the process & break free of the illusion of opposites. I don't see any evidence to date that you recognize the inconsistency of your position.

GoodTimeCharlie: "and so what is your response? what is your solution to this?should the masses arm themselves and attack?"

That is hardly a viable alternative, in my opinion. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it would result in the mask being taken off and the institution of open dictatorship. Some globalists might be itching for this opportunity. It may be a last resort if the jackboots start showing up at our doorsteps...which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

It took them (the elite conspirators) over a hundred years in the West to implement their plan & get this far...and the plan was, take over & dominate the CENTERS OF POWER incrementally, and through the passage of laws gradually, in order to undermine nations & bring about a global order in a kind of bloodless coup based on the model of collectivism. Consider, in America, the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a major branch of this conspiracy. About 80% of the power positions in America are held by CFR members: Cabinet members, Presidents & Vice Presidents, Senators, leaders of Think Tanks & Non-Profit Organizations, owners of major media including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Washington Post, etc., presidents of Universities, leaders of the Military & CIA, and the list goes on. In this way, far less than 1% of the population controls domestic & foreign policy. This plan has been very well designed & implemented.

So, to reverse the process, a plan equally well-considered & effective must be devised. It must be aimed, not at violent revolution, but at recapturing the centers of power by Individualists...and it will take a very long time. This battle won't be won in our lifetimes. It may not be won at all. But it is the only battle worth fighting, if we consider the future important. And if we lose, our children & grandchildren will inherit a world gone to hell, a technological feudalism far more oppressive than any totalitarianism the world has yet known.

For those interested in making a difference, I highly recommend checking out, thoroughly, the Freedom Force International website, which is an organization being designed precisely to fight this war against the collectivists in a long-term struggle. And it has a great deal of information & educative material to clarify the issues at stake. I haven't joined yet, and won't do so until I've thoroughly researched it & verify that I fully agree with its philosophy & approach. But to the extent that I have researched so far, I am strongly leaning that way.

http://www.freedom-force.org/

The Globalists! They've succeeded once again in getting people to bicker about an issue, however worthy in itself, which nevertheless distracts from the larger issues at play. This is what the Left & Right are FOR! :o)

AD said: "When the level of outrage is greater than the level of the offense, something else is at play."

I would only change it to say: "When the level of outrage is greater & more prolonged than the offense necessitates (no matter how inherently offensive), something else is at play."

He is right. Something else is at play. So what is going on with the media coverage of this issue? It is called suckering people into a relative non-issue which they fall for time & time again, hook, line & sinker, while the web of world enslavement is laid quietly strand upon strand.

Does anyone here think his/her country is immune, or whose leaders are not involved, or whose people are too enlightened, to fall into this global trap?

You are mistaken. Time to smell the coffee.

Apaleunicorn: "Don't let her throw any shoes, cuz I smelled her shoes and they are in violation of the Chemical Warfare portion of the Geneva Convention"

Maybe my politics has been wrong all along. We need a bigger homegrown terrorism budget! lol

ScarletRose: You're asking for a good nipping. lol :o)

Thanks for enlivening the board. Don't throw high-heeled shoes! This is contrary to International Treaty and the Geneva Convention. ;o)

Bernice: Now now Bernice. Remember what Czuch said about censorship, he's your ally....and remember all those censorship quotes? You can't be looking to have people moderated just because they argue with AD. :o)

And I've more-or-less stayed out of this debate. I've been interested to watch it & consider the arguments of both sides.

(V): Yes, some things are clearly a matter of etiquette, not free speech. And free speech, moreover, applies to us as individuals, not necessarily to a broadcaster who is paid to do a job.

But this statement....

"Sometimes, the news publishers will work with the gov and/or police to keep certain info quiet, to protect or to aid the efforts into an enquiry."

...yes that can be true, and even justifiable, as you well know. Unfortunately, sometimes (on certain topics, oftentimes) this collaborative relationship between government & media has a more sinister aspect....which is why we must turn to alternate sources of news to get the real scoop on certain issues.

(V): "... And please... censorship.. That's been in place since WW! or WWII."

Very true, and a good point. So much so, that most of the pundits on TV can't properly be criticized personally for what they say, at least not directly so....since they are using talking-points or slants as dictated by their superiors. They are more like sponges without real opinions, ready to obsorb the next factoid or spin.

ScarletRose: I rest my case. lol
:o)))

ScarletRose: "And peeps always complain that a woman is Itchy with a B?"

I think no one would dispute that statement across the entire political spectrum. LOL :o)

THE PROFIT MOTIVE

"The profit motive functions differently in different political systems. In a FREE SYSTEM where government does not intervene in the market place, the profit motive always will manifest itself as COMPETITION, each person or each company trying to deliver better quality products and services at lower prices. That was how it used to be in the early days of America, and that is what led to the greatest outpouring of productivity and abundance the world has ever seen. However, in a COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM where government controls every conceivable aspect of economic and commercial activity (the system that now exists in America), the profit motive always manifests itself as a quest for POLITICAL INFLUENCE and laws to favor one group over another. The net effect is to eliminate competition in the market place. Under collectivism, success is achieved, not by CREATING BETTER PRODUCTS and services for less cost, but by CONTROLLING LEGISLATORS and government agencies. It is a system of LEGALIZED PLUNDER, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law. Unfortunately, it is the system that dominates most of the world today."
--G. Edward Griffin

This is a superb analysis, the kind of analysis that has helped me to understand why a free market is not only more efficient, but also more ethical, than a controlled market, under whatever name.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody

The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. ~Clarence Darrow

Here is a quick & excellent analysis of Western imperialism by means of the IMF & World Bank. It may benefit someone here to read this article.

From the Freedom Force website, it is G. Edward Griffin's analysis (from a Libertarian viewpoint) of the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," which Griffin considers "One of the most valuable and dangerous books of our time."

In my opinion, Griffin does a great job of weeding out the propaganda so that the facts themselves can teach us something about our world.

http://freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=confessionsecon&refpage=issues

(V): lol Drones aren't required to know anything, they just follow orders, do menial tasks, fill out papers, & type on keyboards. The less drones actually think, the better. Thinking can get a drone into trouble.

The great mission, of course, is to turn us all into drones.

"It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically, they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world."
-- G. Edward Griffin

This quote is taken from a document entitled "The Chasm," first in a 4-part series of related articles called "The Future is Calling." Here it is in pdf format:
http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf


Beginning at the top of Page 9, through Page 21, the differences between Collectivism & Individualism, and what each of the terms actually means, is explained.

Bernice: "your Govt tell you you have to give them part of your wages (if you work), why should you have to.....because that is the rules."

That is very true, it is the rules. The question then is, who made the rules? And the answer to that is, Collectivists in position of political authority made those rules, because they believe the government has a right to take your hard-earned money, even against your will. These rules are enforced by laws, which means they are backed by force. I consent to give up a part of my wages not because I want to or think it is right, but because it isn't wise to argue when a gun is pointed at your head.

But why aren't these rules right? For one thing, in America at least, the laws themselves are strictly illegal, because unconstitutional. We have no moral or legal obligation to pay an income tax, only it is preferable to going to jail. Actually, however, many court cases have been won by citizens refusing to pay the income tax on constitutional grounds. But more often than not, the judges back the illegal system.

It is these "rules," whether in Australia or America, that together comprise the modern police state we live in, where Collectivists rule and Individualists (such as the America Founding Fathers) have been dethroned. And that is really my point.

Czuch: Here is an article by Ron Paul which demonstrates how the new Republicans are no longer conservative:

"The Dangers of Neo-Conservative Economic Policies"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul471.html

Czuch: "That is exactly what I dislike about liberals and the socialist left in the US! That is exactly what they stand for, and what they think they want and i dont think most of them understand the consequences of what they are asking for, really."

I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I was an idealist of this class who thought socialism in some form was the best answer. What changed my mind was seeing the End Game of this political process. More specifically, that at the highest levels, it is a game of deceit & treachery, both against our Constitution and against true humanitarianism.

"That is exactly why I vote conservative, the lessor of two evils"

I think you are making the same mistake I was making, from the opposite end, so to speak. The Neo-Cons & the Republican party fully support this Fabian socialist model of one world collectivism in their policies & laws, only they couch it in different terms for mass consumption. The only true conservative in the new Republican party, to my knowledge, is Ron Paul. The rest of them....Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Billy Crystal, Dick Cheney, and on & on....are members of the CFR and are working for world government.

Bernice: Why should you have to explain to the government why you exercise your right not to vote? What gives the government the right to penalize you for not voting or not explaining? Collectivists say the government has that right. Individualists say the government has no rights, only people do. Collectivists say the "group" is more important than the "individual." Individualists say the word "group" is an abstraction, not a real thing, only individuals are real & only individuals have rights. People make governments to protect those rights, not so that the governments will turn around & dictate what they ought or ought not to do. This is raising money? Sure it is. Another word for it is robbery.

Bernice: Speaking of Freedom Force International, there is a chapter in Sydney, Australia. Here is a report on some of their activities:
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=AUSYDNEY20060221&refpage=activities

Bernice: "well....we voted LOL....it is compulsory over here...$70 fine if you don't."

Compulsory voting is a sign of Collectivism at work. "Collectivism" means government knows best, and should force people to do what is right. So you pay $70 for choosing not to vote. This is coercion, not liberty...the very opposite of the political philosophy called "Individualism," which means that government is designed, not to force people to do anything, but only to protect the rights of individuals, specifically: Life, Liberty & Property.

The elimination of gun ownership in Australia is another indication that the Collectivists (the New World Order people) have a firm control over your country. This is not only an American issue, but a global one. Which is why confronting & eventually defeating this conspiracy will require an international strategy. Freedom Force International, for example, now has members in 60 countries.

So there...I've complained about another country besides the U.S. lol :o)

1. Here are dozens are articles written by & about Ron Paul. I'm especially interested in his writings. I want to understand better who he is, what he stands for, and how his principles apply to policy-making. What I've read so far I've liked:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/


2. Here is Freedom Force International. The "International" doesn't mean globalism or one world government, but the opposite...that nationalism ought to be promoted globally, and a one world government resisted. I'm busy reading all of the online documents on this webiste, and considering becoming a member. Its mission is to develop an organization & plan to take back control of centers of power from the collectivists, one-by-one....a long-term vision.
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home

Artful Dodger: That's getting close. To really pin it down, maybe a couple more adjectives could be thrown in. lol

Czuch: "What would be the great conquest of making the US part of a new world order? How do I benefit by joining a secret conspiracy to dupe the american public into opting into some new world government?"

There are different motives. One of the motives is a humane, but misguided, idealism. For example, H.G. Wells wrote The Open Conspiracy/New World Order over a hundred years ago. He argued that we had to abolish national governments and create a world government in order to stop wars and to feed people. It had to be socialism so that wise people at the top could control things for the stupid people at the bottom, for their own good. You see? So people like H.G. Wells aren't on a mission to enslave people and take away their rights & rule them with an iron fist PER SE...they just think it is a necessary means to a good end. You may think of H.G. Wells just as a fiction writer. But he was very political, and one of the founding members of the Fabian society.

The people who think this way are Fabian socialists, and they created institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and even the United Nations, to bring this future utopia about. Most of our presidents since WWII and high level people in every branch of government, the media, finance & industry, think tanks & non-profit organizations are/have been members of the CFR.

Even though these people are idealistic and supposedly humanitarian, they recognize the necessity of breaking apart what exists now in order to create something better in its place. So the aim is "to smash the world to bits, and remold it to the heart's desire." Thus the wars, the economic chaos, etc.

I think the inner circle of this conspiracy does not pretend to be humanitarian, but has a clearer picture of what world government really entails, and a different motive. How would this benefit them? It would create a relatively stable world with no opposition in which they can rule & live the good life at the expense of others. Nothing is very surprising about this. It's about consolidation of power & control over human beings. Not everyone is like you and I, Czuch...content more or less to be left alone. Which is why restrictions on power in a government, such as the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, are so necessary.

Artful Dodger: "hmmmm, maybe I'll be a Constitarian. Or Libertarionalist."

I'm in the same boat, Art. I don't know what you call it...but I think that's where I'm headed.

Here's a great commentary by Republican Congressman Ron Paul, entitled:

"Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track"

In his commentary he discusses the reasons for the demise of Republican political power and the inherent folly of the Democratic power that has replaced it....and recommends the way back. One of his closing statements is:

"To ignore the political struggle and only 'hope for the best' is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

Czuch: "I can agree with you on this point for sure"

All agreements between you and I are hard-earned, so I appreciate your post.

Ok now, back to reading "Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission," by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.

They don't call me "the little engine that could" for nothing. lol

Artful Dodger: It's true, many explanations are possible, and there is no getting around deeper research to weigh the relative merits & demerits of any possibility.

An interesting point about the Bilderberg meetings is that major news media are always present & well represented. Not only so, but the owners of the various news media also attend. So while it may be true that there is a fear of "common reporters" (and this I believe is true), it also seems likely that the leaders of the "Fourth Estate" are bedfellows with leaders of the other three Estates...not a very healthy arrangement, I would think. And it tends to support the conspiracy model.

Artful Dodger: I see your point. It is possible that Kissinger is simply arguing that Americans are vulnerable to an elite conspiracy, without himself being a member of it. In order to make the further point, that there IS a conspiracy, and that he is a part of it, context is required.

The fact that he would SAY this, is significant, considering who Kissinger is, and his political power. He is speaking to the Bilderberg group, a secretive organization of world leaders. I say secretive because they meet privately & do not reveal their agenda publicly. To understand how he is speaking to co-conspirators, therefore, would require some knowledge of the Bilderberg group, for which there are some good books out there.

Everything requires context. And every argument assumes some level of common understanding as a foundation. It is possible that someone has never heard of either Kissinger or the Bilderberg group...in which case the quote, while its point about the possibility of using fear to drive Americans into world government may be clear, nevertheless may not drive home the point that such a scenario is a real plan in the making.

Artful Dodger: "How exactly does it reveal that?"

Kissinger is predicting the future to his fellow co-conspirators, is he not? He is saying Americans in the future will willingly abandon individual rights, and will accept world government, through the mechanism of fear. I'm not sure how much more obvious it could be.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be greatful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
--Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

The significance of this quote is that it reveals the elite conspiracy.