Freedom Force Report for September 2009

From G. Edward Griffin

It has become increasingly my custom to base these monthly reports on exchanges of correspondence with Freedom Force members and Unfiltered News subscribers. At first, this format seemed too casual to be worthy of our official publication, but as the process continued, I began to realize that most of the topics were top caliber and, in fact, were exactly what I should have chosen on my own even if I had not been prompted. So, instead of apologizing for this unscholarly format of statement and response, I now see the value of letting those who write to me set the course for these reports, and I thank you for expressing an interest in my views.
DOES GOVERNMENT CONTROL CORPORATIONS OR CORPORATIONS CONTROL GOVERNMENT?
ALSO: SLAVERY AND FOUNDING-FATHERS BASHING
On 2009 Sept 28, Grace Payton wrote:
Mr. Griffin,
I have stepped back and taken a look at the larger picture. You helped me do that with your book, World without Cancer. Contrary to claims that our government is taking over the corporations, in reality, a cartel of banks and corporations have taken over our government, by lobby and campaign contribution influence. Big business + legislature = collusion + corruption. This is the larger picture. Our founding fathers said that power corrupts... then proceeded to give us both. Their first move toward it was slavery = cheap labor... Already, we were not all "created equal".

HERE WAS MY REPLY:

Hello Grace.
Congratulations on being able to see through the smokescreen and recognize that the new reality in Washington is a merger of government and corporations, with government the captive. By definition, this is corporate fascism.

The slavery issue is worth re-examining. In no way do I condone slavery, but please be aware that our founding fathers did not invent it. It was not their "first move." They were born into a world at a time when it was commonplace. Many of our ancestors were outspoken against slavery and were working to bring about a shift in public opinion that was inexorably moving in the direction of universal emancipation. It is easy for us, 200 years later, to look back and be judgmental about how slowly the reform was moving, but one does not change the economic and ethical base of an entire society overnight.

Most people alive today, if suddenly transported back in time to find themselves living in the world that existed then, would be unable to sway many minds, no matter how eloquent they may be. If they found themselves as estate owners with scores of slaves producing crops, it is highly unlikely that they would discharge those workers and close down their enterprises. Some would reply that all they would have to do is free them and then pay them a wage for the same work, but that would have been impossible. Most slaves in those days lacked enough education to count their wages, negotiate their lodging, purchase their food, obtain medical care (such as it was), or perform any of the other functions of free men. They were born as slaves, and that’s the only mode of existence most of them knew. They may have wanted to be free, but, just as at the end of the Civil War many years later, most of them didn’t know how to be free.


Genuine reform of that magnitude takes time, and I believe we can be proud to know it was underway at the time of the American Revolution and just as advanced, if not more so, as similar reform anywhere else in the world. If we are to condemn early Americans for the institution of slavery which they inherited, then we must also condemn Europeans, Asians, and Africans of that time. Yes, Africans. It is true that slaves brought to Europe and America were transported by Dutch and British ships but they were captured into slavery and sold to those slave traders by African chiefs and warring tribes. In other words, no one's ancestors are free of this taint.

It took centuries for the world's advanced cultures to reject slavery, and we should not single out the American colonists as though they were the originators and advocates of that dying institution. Let's leave Founding-Father-bashing to those who hate America.


A VOICE IN FAVOR OF BRITISH HEALTH CARE
2009 Sept 19 from Anonymous:
I am English and only moved to the USA three years ago when I married my wife who is American. I have huge respect for you Mr Griffin. I read your book 'World without Cancer' in the 1970's - the same period you say you visited my country, the UK, and evaluated its' health service. Your book on Cancer was well researched and well written, and I am sure it broke the fixed thinking of many people about the correctness of mainstream cancer medicine. I am very sorry therefore to disagree with you about the US health service being superior to the UK's health service. Here are some facts about the UK's national health service:

• Everyone is covered, be they employed or not. • Everyone has the right still to take out Private Health Insurance or get cover under their company health insurance plan - about 10% of the population do. The private health service does offer a greater level of care and faster service. • Everyone employed in the UK pays a National Health contribution taken from their payroll. • The cost per head of population for UK health care is about half that of US health care and yet everyone is covered. • Some hospitals are old, but old hospitals are now a rarity. • You cannot loose your home or go bankrupt if a family member gets ill. • No one finds themselves uninsured or exempted from cover because of their age or illness record. • General Practitioners form the backbone of the UK health service, they keep their responsibility of care for you as a patient no matter who or where you are referred to with a specific illness. • It goes without saying that people in the UK do not fear the cost of illness. • The most you can pay for a prescription is $16, If you are over 60 or unemployed or chronically ill the cost is zero.

Here in the USA my wife has unfortunately been ill on a number of occasions these last three years, so I have experienced the so called 'health industry' here and I have been horrified at the US medical systems treatment of uninsured sick people. I have met many doctors, only two of whom I have any respect for as humanists. The rest appear to have become doctors for the wealth and/or social prestige doctors can expect. In truth I have found the majority of the American Health Establishment a mercenary group of avaristic hypocrites.

In the USA, 56% of the country's wealth is owned by 1% of the population. You can be sure those people and their families will get the very best health care money can buy. You can also be sure that whilst a worker is working it pays to keep him or her and their family as healthy as possible with a company insurance program that pays a lot of the cost of health cover, (but may still not be enough to stop them losing their home or going bankrupt.) You can also be sure that those beyond work in terms of age or illness will be discarded on the uninsured slag heap currently filled with 40 million other fellow Americans. I would have thought you could see all this, Mr Griffin.

MY REPLY:
My opposition to government health care has nothing to do with admiration for the present monopolized system in the U.S. I am convinced that the quality and availability of health care must always decline under political control; I have witnessed that costs for basic services always increase under government regulations (although invisibly passed on to the taxpayer); and I know that government health care is an economic funnel into pharmaceutical companies (non-drug therapies are almost totally excluded). Even if none of that were true, however, I would still be opposed to politicized health care because of my concern for freedom. What the state pays for, it will control. When the state pays for our health care, our home mortgages and rent, our retirement, our unemployment benefits, our education, our job training, our food, the building of our automobiles, the liquidity of our banks, and all the other important aspects of our lives, the state will totally control every one of us. I am not fond of becoming a serf. I hope that Anonymous will step back and see the larger picture.

WHY DO SOME FREEDOM ADVOCATES ADVOCATE ANARCHY?

On 2009 September 2, Adam wrote:

Hi Ed,
I'm sure you are extremely busy, so I'll keep this brief. I just wanted to say thank you again for all that you do and that the following questions and disagreements are raised with a great deal of respect for you.

While learning about different theories on the proper role of government, I discovered the very interesting philosophy of anarchy. Like most people, the word anarchy at first brought to mind images of burning buildings and Molotov cocktails, but in fact, these things could not be further from the anarchist philosophy. When the word "anarchy" is dissected, we see two Greek words: "an", meaning without, and "archy", from "archia" or "ruler". Anarchy, in its truest sense, is simply the absence of government. Many people use the word anarchy to describe chaos and thievery when, in truth, those descriptions are more properly attributed to the state. Those images are emotive responses which society has ingrained into our subconscious.

Anarchy is morally opposed to violence and destruction. The absence of government means the absence of coercion and violence since, without those two elements, government would cease to exist. Stefan Molyneux analyzes many of the assumptions we hold about freedom and society in his free book, Everyday Anarchy (http://freedomainradio.com/free/#EA).

MY REPLY:
It is true that violence and civil chaos are not the philosophy or intended character of anarchy but they are the inevitable consequence. The only way to prevent the predator elements of society from plundering, enslaving, or killing their victims is for the non-predators to engage in self defense. Individual self defense is an obvious imperative, and organized self defense is necessary in the face of organized predators. When individuals delegate their right of self defense to specialists whom they hire, they create a coercive force that is inherently dangerous because, as history has shown, those who hold that delegated authority are inclined to exercise mission creep and, in the absence of strict control by their employers, eventually they become no different than the predators who they were employed to keep at bay.

Even if that were not the case, those who are hired to implement organized defense still hold the power of coercion, which makes them dangerous no matter how they are organized. Anachists often claim that, so long as they are structured as a private enterprise instead of an agency of government, it will be acceptable. However, it really makes no difference how coercion is structured. The important issue is not if it is called government or a private security company, it is the nature of its authority and activities. If it is allowed to become "positive" in its use of coercion instead of strictly defensive (the protection of life, liberty, and property) it will attract the predators of society and eventually become oppressive. The history of the Mafia is a perfect example. Initially, it began as the hired private guards of large Italian farms and estates. After only a few generations, the security guards had taken over those estates as their own. (See the book: Men of Honor.) In other words, it makes no difference if organized coercion is done by the state or a private group, unless it is strictly limited to a defensive function, the result will be the same.

ADAM CONTINUES:

With those concepts in mind, I was rather disappointed to see the way you referred to anarchy on page 22 of The Future Is Calling, Part 1 (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf). You associate anarchy with barbarism, stating that adherents to barbarism include "any advocate of rule by brute force with no pretense at ideological justification; includes anarchists".

MY REPLY:

You have a good point here. I think I should edit that to make it clear that anarchists do not advocate barbarism. The problem still remains that there must be some form of organized coercion in defense of life, liberty, and property. Like you, I would prefer that it be done by private institutions, but the state could do the same thing, provided it is limited by charter to a defensive function and further provided that the citizenry remains forever alert to the danger of the erosion of such a restraint.

ADAM CONTINUES:

It seems that you are either unaware of the philosophy of anarchy or are associating barbarism with your emotional response to the word anarchy instead of the true definition of anarchy.

MY REPLY:

Please be assured that I am very much aware of the philosophy of anarchy, and my reaction has nothing to do with emotion. This is entirely an issue of logic – tempered by an observation of history.


ADAM CONTINUES:

Anarchist philosophy opposes barbarism and relies on voluntary means to achieve all ends. Statism is truly barbarism because it relies on violence and coercion to achieve compliance. Even the concept of a protectorate that you have put forth, if it is non-voluntary, must rely on theft (taxation) and violence (the force that backs taxation) to "protect". I do not see how the protectorate you describe is any different from the violence-backed/tax-funded collective defense system we have today. Unless an individual has the choice to secede from the protectorate, it is nothing more than another head of the creature of collectivism. A protectorate comes close but falls short of achieving true liberty because it ultimately relies on violence to achieve its objectives. The protection of society can be achieved without resorting to the barbaric tactics that the state employs.

MY REPLY:

The issue of voluntary seccession is at the heart of any free society. I am a strong advocate of upholding that right. If organized defensive coercion is carried out by a private institution, the right of acceptance or rejection of the protection is straightforward. Much like hiring a security service for our home, we can purchase it or not, as we wish. That would be ideal, although it would be difficult to administer at the level of active crime intervention.

For example, if we were to enroll in a local security service and if we were accosted on the street by a mugger, we would expect to have the nearest security officer come to our aid as close to immediately as possible. The security officer, on the other hand, would either have to ask to see our enrollment card before springing into action or he would have to take action regardless of our enrollment. If I were running such a service, I would instruct our officers to do their best to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people regardless of whether or not they were subscribers. I think the practical effect and the public relations impact of such a policy would insure the success of our service and bring nearly everyone voluntarily into the ranks of subscribers. The same would apply to fire protection. If I were running a private fire department, I would instruct my firefighters to respond to all fires and do their best, even if we knew the homeowner whose house was burning was not a subscriber to our service.

Back to the question of freedom to participate or to decline. In my view, this right should be preserved whether services are provided by private institutions or by the state. Most people assume that, if the state is involved, everyone would be forced to participate through taxation, but that is not necessarily true. If the law is written properly, the option of participation can be made entirely voluntary, exactly the same as if provided by a private company. Our minds are easily clouded by the old way of thinking. In the past, the state always has required compulsory participation, but there is no force of the universe that requires it to be so in the future. The state has become oppressive in the past because it never has been effectively limited to a purely defensive function. The American Republic came pretty close to it and, in fact, performed well for the first 80 to 100 years. Unfortunately, there were serious loopholes in the Constitution and cracks in the structure that allowed the predators to seize control. But it need not always be that way. I am firmly convinced that, with the essence of The Creed of Freedom hard wired into the next attempt at building a free state, it can be done.

In any event, if it cannot be done with the state, it cannot be done with private institutions, either. Whenever any group is given the right to use force, the danger will exist. The problem is similar to gun ownership. When guns are in the home, there is always a danger that accidents could happen. Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so. Without organized self defense, organized predators will always prevail – and that is the problem with anarchy. The solution to managing that danger is, not to refrain from organized self defense, but in organizing it properly (making sure it is used only for the protection of life, liberty, and property) and - most importantly - in creating a perpetual watch-dog movement (Freedom Force may serve that function) to keep the original intent from being subverted over time.

ADAM CONTINUES:

I very much agree with the motto of Freedom Force, "Those without power cannot defend freedom" but would add that "those who believe theft and violence are justified for the purpose of organizing society cannot even conceptualize freedom."

MY REPLY:
I agree that we must reject the concept that theft and violence are justified to organize society. There is no such sentiment within The Creed of Freedom or in Freedom Force.


WHY IS AN OATH REQUIRED TO BECOME PART OF FREEDOM FORCE?

Dear Mr. Griffin,

I have the strongest respect for your work and the perspicacity of your insights but I have a question. I went to Freedom Force to become a member and was immediately confronted with taking an oath. This immediately made me uncomfortable. I do not think I need to swear an oath to buy your books or believe in freedom. You may respond that this is optional if it makes me uncomfortable, but why have it in the first place? It seems a contradiction in terms.

I thank you so much for your work and I am working to spread the word by sending friends and family your books.

Sincerely, Seth N.



MY REPLY:

Hello Seth.

The only requirement for being in Freedom Force is that all of us must endorse the principles expressed in The Creed of Freedom and abide by The Code of Conduct. If we did not have that, there would be no reason for our movement. To simply say that “I believe in freedom” is short of the mark. Most people cannot define freedom and many think it is merely not being in prison. Americans say they believe in freedom, but then they support measures and vote for candidates that implement involuntary servitude disguised as social justice or humanitarianism. Collectivists claim they believe in freedom, too, but they have practically no limit to the number of exceptions, all of which are justified as being necessary for the greater good of the greater number – as determined by them, of course. Therefore, it is not enough to say that one believes in freedom to become part of Freedom Force.

One of the things that set Freedom Force apart from others is that we know what we believe, we state what we believe, and we adhere to what we believe. We do not ask anyone to take an oath of loyalty to an individual or organization, but we do expect dedication to the principles that are the foundation of our movement, because that is what binds us together. All of us are proud of those principles and are glad to say so. Those who do not feel comfortable with such a declaration are not yet ready for our freedom brotherhood.

I hope that this makes sense to you, Seth, and that you will unhesitatingly add your name to the many thousands of individualists from around the world who have endorsed The Creed of Freedom. Thanks for writing.


A WHITEWASH OF THE WARREN COMMISSION WHITE WASH
Early this month, a good friend and staunch Freedom Force member sent me a copy of the book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, by Vincent Bugliosi. I was glad he did but wish he had not. I was glad he did because, otherwise, I would never have spent the money ($40) or taken the time to explore such a huge volume (1612 pages). I wish he had not because, although my friend was impressed by Bugliosi’s work, I was appalled by it and dreaded being in disagreement with a friend. Nevertheless, here is what I wrote:


Hello Dave.

What a pleasant surprise to receive a copy of Bugliosi’s monumental work, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Of course I immediately plunged into it, not expecting to finish it anytime soon but to test the waters and get a feel for the author’s approach.

As you know, I have been a JFK-assassination buff from the day it occurred, and my library is bursting with a large collection of books on the topic from just about every conceivable point of view. Having read some books does not make me an expert, but it does sensitize me to certain key elements to look for. I spent a great deal of time initially studying the index.

Having spent the best part of the evening in this fashion, I have come to the conclusion that Bugliosi has written a white wash of the original white wash put out by the Warren Commission which, in my opinion, is the second most corrupt investigation in the history of the world, upstaged only by the 9/11 Commission Report.

While most of the material in Reclaiming History is relatively inconsequential, appearing to be there for the primary purpose of adding size and weight to the volume in the vain hope of lending an air of scholarship, here are a few items that are, in my opinion, very important. Bugliosi may be correct on the 99% of his book that deals with inconsequential information but incorrect on 1% that is crucial. Furthermore, his writing style and manipulation of language suggests malicious deception.

It is clear from the start that Bugliosi has nothing but contempt for those who he labels “conspiracy theorists.” This is not a minor matter with him. It is a theme that recurs throughout the book and, in fact, he even devotes a chapter to a psychological analysis of those who accept the possibility of conspiracies, and he labels them as paranoiacs. We can easily guess what he thinks about those who are concerned about hidden agendas behind the war on terror, the war on drugs, and electronic voting machines.

This is not the place to rebut Bugliosi, but I don’t think I really need to with you. The point is that he makes no effort to conceal his “everything is as it appears to be” mindset. If he really believes what he writes, then it would be impossible for him to accept anything other than the official version of the Kennedy assassination. If he were to do so, by his own words, he would be classified as a wacko paranoic. On the face of it, therefore, he is self prohibited from accepting any contrary evidence, no matter how conclusive it may be to others. In other words, by his own admission, his analysis is biased.

This bias shows up on almost every page of his book. Repeatedly, he describes a claim that challenges the official version but, instead of analytically debunking that claim, he simply dismisses it as absurd or impossible – but offers no real analysis. Traces of sarcasm are everywhere, but I have looked in vain for true rebuttal – at least on the important issues. Let’s face it, there truly are some kooky conspiracy theories out there, and they are easy to debunk. Bugliosi spends a lot of time with those but very little with the bigger issues.

For example, one of the most compelling testimonies that exists is the videotaped statement of James Files who, incredible as it may seem, claims to be the one who fired the last shot, the one that penetrated Kennedy’s skull – and, yes, he describes in great detail how he did it from behind the fence at the back of the grassy knoll. I defy anyone to watch this man for the full hour of his testimony and not become convinced he is telling the truth. Speaking extemporaneously in answer to questions, he provides hundreds of minute details that fit perfectly with the testimony of other participants in the assassination team (one of whom I will mention in a moment) that never met him, so it was impossible for them to match up their stories. Bugliosi condenses Files’ story into a single paragraph and then dismisses it completely by saying simply that Files is not taken seriously, not even by most conspiracy buffs.

What garbage! The truth is that all the buffs I have met take Files very seriously, indeed. It’s only the FBI and Bugliosi who claim he is not credible. Furthermore, if he is not credible, I am still waiting for Bugliosi to explain to my satisfaction why not. Simply saying he is not credible does not put the matter to rest. If you are interested in seeing the Files testimony, I think it still is on the Internet. A DVD version can be obtained here: http://www.realityzone.com/filesonjfk.html.

Chauncey Holt, another member of the assassination team, gave an on-camera confession just eight days before his death. Although he had never met Files, he corroborated all the key elements of his story. They both were working for the Chicago Mob in this assignment and described it as a joint operation with the CIA. Here, again, there are hundreds of details: name, dates, places, minute descriptions of meetings and preparations. It is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that directly challenges the official version of the assassination; yet Bugliosi doesn’t even mention it.

Holt’s name is listed only once in the index, but no mention of him could be found on the page shown. I was unable to locate any reference to him anywhere except on a list of eighty-two names on page 1497. Bugliosi describes this as a list of gunmen who “conspiracy theorists” have claimed were shooting at Kennedy that day. That, of course, makes the so-called theorists look ridiculous, as it was intended to do, but the technique is dishonest. I don’t know about all the other names on that list, but putting Chauncy Holt on it is either sloppy research or calculated deception. I am not aware of anyone who has claimed that Holt was shooting at JFK. Anyone who actually has listened to his testimony would know that he claimed, not to be a shooter, but a backup person to provide logistic assistance to the assassination team.

Here is a 1612-page book of the Kennedy Assassination, and one of the most important pieces of evidence, in the form of a near-death confession of one of the participants, is not even mentioned and, in fact, his role in the plot is inaccurately described. It’s the same technique used by the Warren Commission (and the 9/11 Commission, by the way). The testimony of Chauncey Holt is available on DVD here: http://www.realityzone.com/spookshoods.html.

There is much more along these lines, but perhaps one more example will be sufficient. The former mistress of LBJ, years after he had died, was persuaded to tell her eye-witness account of a meeting LBJ attended the night prior to the assassination. Speaking before a video camera, Madeleine Brown gave details that are a sharp challenge to the official version. She said that, on the evening prior to the assassination, she attended a social event at the Dallas mansion of the Texas oil magnate, Clint Murcheson. In attendance were J. Edgar Hoover, John McCloy (who later was appointed to the Warren Commission), Richard Nixon, H.L. Hunt, a host of Dallas dignitaries and, of course LBJ. She said that, at the end of the gathering, he whispered in her ear: “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise.”

That is pretty interesting testimony, especially considering that, at the time of speaking before the camera, Miss Brown still held great personal affection for LBJ and even had born a child to him. She certainly was not seeking revenge. She said that she just felt an obligation to tell the truth about what she knew.

So what is Bugliosi’s reaction to this? It is simply to sneer at it and assure the reader that her statement is not to be believed. He writes: “So, if we’re to believe Miss Brown, Lyndon Baines Johnson … decided not only to murder President Kennedy, but also to tell others about it.” Here again, we have a sneering rejection of the testimony and what can only be viewed as a distortion of facts. Brown never said that LBJ “decided to kill Kennedy.” When I viewed her testimony, it was clear to me that the decision had been made by others, that LBJ had merely been advised of it, but that he was an enthusiastic supporter (for very good reasons of his own, by the way). So he did not “decide to kill the President.”

Admittedly, there is not much ethical difference between deciding and supporting, but using the phrase: “Johnson decided to kill the President” is a verbal construction calculated to cause the reader to reject it on the face of it. If Bugliosi had written: “Johnson was an enthusiastic beneficiary of the plot,” (which is a correct representation), readers would have been far less inclined to reject it as implausible. Here again, we find Bugliosi putting a twist here and spin there to create an emotional reaction on the part of his readers and to ridicule or obfuscate the evidence that runs counter to The Warren Commission Report.

In my view, this book has no value except as an example of propaganda to cover the evil deeds of those who have corrupted our government.

Thanks again, Dave, for sending this to me.


NEW WORLD ORDER ARCHITECT, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, SAYS IT IS EASIER TO KILL A MILLION PEOPLE THAN TO CONTROL THEM. MANY ARE ALARMED BY THAT STATEMENT BUT FOR THE WRONG REASON.

On November 17, 2008, Zbignew Brzezinski, a New World Order architect and a founder of the Rockefeller-controlled Trilateral Commission, addressed Chatham House, (the British counterpart of the American Council on Foreign Relations) and said: "I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows: ... namely, in early times, it was easier to control a million people; literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...."

When this statement arrived on the Internet a few months later, it was widely circulated with shock and alarm.
It certainly was an attention getter, and it was assumed by many to be proof that Brzezinski and his fellow New World Order elitists were calling for the killing of millions of people. Fortunately, some of the news sources carried a link to the audio recording of his speech, so it was possible to listen to his entire presentation to see if he really did say what was attributed to him. Unfortunately, not many of the Internet dispatchers took the time to listen. If they had, they would have realized that Brzezinski was merely making an honest and accurate assessment of historical fact. Like it or not, in modern times it is easier to kill than to control a million people. So, why the hoopla?

That, however, is not the end of the story. When we carefully listen to the rest of this speech, we realize Brzezinski is saying that control of the masses is the real objective of the New World Order, and he is lamenting the fact that it is so difficult now that almost every nation and culture has become politically aware. He recalls those days-gone-by when this was not so, when the masses neither knew nor cared about politics and could be controlled simply by force of arms and economic coercion. Under those conditions, controlling people was easier, he says. Now, however, when almost everyone believes they should participate in their own political destiny via the vote, the process has become much more difficult.

He is, of course, entirely correct in that assessment. Although he did not elaborate, he could have continued by reminding this elite audience of facts they know so well: that now it also is necessary to control the media, the educational system, the leadership of all major political parties, and even the systems by which ballots are counted in order to keep the masses content with the illusion of determining their own political destiny. That’s what now makes it so difficult.

He devoted the balance of his speech primarily to the concept that the United States should and will continue to be the leader among nations in solving all international problems, including economic problems, but always within the context of strengthening global governance and building a global monetary system. It was the CFR/Chatham House mantra that is the norm for such gatherings.

Even though Brezinsky is not here calling for the killing of a million people, when he does discuss that option, there is a remarkable coldness about his words. Like all collectivists, he is academically dispassionate when it comes to the sacrifice of human life and freedom so long as it can be theorized to be for the greater good of society - or, in this case, the New World Order.

NEW MEMBER ON FIRE WITH PASSION FOR LIBERTY
from: Chris G. on August 20, 2009

Mr. Griffin,

First of all I would like to thank you for being the patriotic warrior that you are. I read your book "The creature from Jekyll Island" over 10 years ago when I had just graduated from college. I was in such awe when you enlightened me with facts of how our system works. I must tell you that even though I was intrigued by the subject matter, I went on with my life and did what most do, which is get a job and start pursuing the American Dream. I got my first job in the financial service industry working for Dean Witter.

I bought my first home and felt that I was well on my way to achieving the American Dream. Many things and events have taken place over the past 10 years and, to my astonishment, the things that you implanted in my mind right out of college have become reality. Everything that you predicted that would happen has happened. Our future has become more clear than ever before of where our society is going. I'm still a financial advisor today and I surround myself with intelligent people. The people who I respect most share the same philosophies that you so eloquently explain. We find ourselves debating how we got to where we are and how do we get ourselves out of this mess. In our talks, I remembered your book and told every one of my colleagues they must read "The Creature from Jekyll Island". I ordered a new copy 2 weeks ago and just finished reading it again to refresh my memory.

I am lost for words now that I have lived through 10+ years of what you said was going to happen. I find myself filled with emotions of anger, fear, despair, vulnerability, hopelessness, and disappointment. At the same time, I'm committed to doing something proactive to help us get off this road that will certainly lead to a world that I would rather die than live in.

Mr. Griffin, so many people I know feel the same way that I do but don't know what to do or how to go about doing it. I'm hoping your organization will lead us in the right direction so we can take back the country that our forefathers fought and risked their lives for! I have joined Freedom Force International and I will be rallying as many people I know to do the same.

Hopefully together we can save this great country from those who have an agenda that's different from ours. Again thank you for your leadership and commitment to preserving the very freedoms that so many take for granted.

NORWAY: ROLE MODEL FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER
>From Bjorn on 2009 Aug 28
Hi Ed.
Things are moving in various forms here. Norway is, as you might have sensed, a semi communistic state run by a very tight governmental system that pacifies its population by an administration unparalleled in history. There are 4.7 million inhabitants and .3 mill workers in administration and collateral groups working indirectly for administration. This massive administrative group is fed by oil billions; else the whole system would collapse. In such an atmosphere of passivity, Freedom Force International is like a daydream to most. I have talked with numerous people, but they have a deep feeling inside that it does not matter or that Freedom Force may be some dangerous right-wing American group that threatens the social peace.

Norway reflects the future of the USA. It is the role model for the New World Order; a pacified society where people are afraid and do not express openly their views because of loss of privileges. If any person within the system talks against the system, he is without a network and a job.

You awarded a man in Norway for his work for health. He is a good man really, but working in the system, his actions are pacified. He, too, is becoming mainstream, because that is how the system works. It tailors you into mainstream. By stressing social responsibility as an ideal and promoting love and peace as ideals, every opponent to the current system is seen as someone who is antisocial and not caring. We even have examples where a high ranking administrator who has criticized the system was put into a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of psychosis and paranoia. This goes for people near the top; one was Mrs. Tafto who was working in the administration of former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland. So no one is basically secure; serious critique is regarded as bad and even a sign of mental illness.

Promoting Freedom Force International in Russia will be easier, as one Russian intellectual said to me: "I have now lived in Norway for 20 years and find it more repressing than old Russia and more dangerous, because we do not know who the enemy is. It is the whole system that is the game; not single groups or dictators." So Norway is a role model for making the ultimate passive society.

Intellectuals these days?
Well, they go fishing and do not care anymore.
Sad, Ed.
Very sad.

May the Force of Freedom be with you.

Ed Griffin