"When a legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what's the real difference between them and the thief? Darn little! They hide behind the excuse that they're legislating democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob can justify its act because a majority participated." ~ H.L. Richardson
The Social Engineering of the State
'Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ~Hermann Goring, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
Change comes painfully to any society, and rarely without the support or (more accurately) acquiescence of the general public. Certainly one could find numerous exceptions to this rule, but for the most part public opinion is courted, popular demand is wooed, and the State seeks to romance the 'will of the people.' Things are just easier that way. The public must be appeased, or at least feel appeased, if nothing else for the simple sake of appearances. PR-type people are well aware that the appearance of public support creates public support, for such is the nature of groupthink. For the would-be molders of policies and laws, the importance of 'public opinion,' be it real or perceived, cannot be understated. This is especially true when seeking to institute massive changes to a populace's accepted norms or very way of life. How does the State swiftly and decisively garner public support for agendas the public may deem objectionable? Enter the time-honored 'Problem/Reaction/Solution' system (let's call it PRS for short). Unpopular or controversial policies are frequently implemented by way of creating a popular demand for them utilizing the PRS, and we would do well to analyze 'the news' and certain current events in this light.
You see, John Q. Public, your opinions are not always your own. You think and feel the way you do about a multitude of specific topics because somebody wants you to have those beliefs. Your opinion and support was predicted and created using this system:
Certain circumstances (Problems) have been allowed to arise, or have been outright created, that have led you (and other sheeple) to come to certain 'logical conclusions' (Reactions), and as a result of these conclusions, certain people are able to make a lot more money, wield a lot more power, or further social, political, and economic agendas (Solutions) that previously might have been viewed by the public as unacceptable, were it not for things such as Osama bin Boogeyman popping up and creating the 'drastic times' needed to justify the 'drastic measures' currently being inflicted upon humanity by the State and its many partners in crime.
It is absolutely imperative that we learn to critically analyze the events that occur around us. When you watch 'the news,' when you hear of some major event (particularly of a violent nature), you must learn to ask yourself, 'what is the logical outcome, and who will benefit?' More often than not, the true architects and beneficiaries of misery and mourning are not the boogeymen we think.
Most people are already familiar with Hitler's burning of the Reichstag, Cicero 's exploits in Rome , and various other historical examples of the PRS in action. Rather than present global history as evidence, let's examine some U.S. history and exorcise that little demon in your head that tells you '. . . but those kinds of things aren't done in America ':
Remember the Maine
The unofficial slogan of the Spanish-American War was 'Remember the Maine !' Indeed, let us remember the Maine . Let us remember how its explosion in a Havana harbor (and the resulting death of 266 Americans) was used as the pretext for entering the war in 1898. Let us remember how the Maine 's own Captain, in the absence of any other signs of an attack, urged an investigation before any conclusions were drawn (for which he was soundly flogged in the American newspapers). Lastly, let us remember how Admiral Hyman Rickover, 'the father of the nuclear Navy,' using data collected from a 1911 examination of the wreckage, concluded in 1976 that the explosion was not from any external source, but began with a fire in the coal bin placed next to the ship's ammunition magazine. Interestingly enough, this important finding by Admiral Rickover is NOT included in his short biography on the Department of the Navy's historical website. Go figure.
A date that will live in infamy . . .
No longer the stuff of 'conspiracy theory,' it is now a matter of public record that Washington D.C, and in particular President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, knew in advance of the 'surprise attack' on Pearl Harbor in 1941. If checking the Internet or your local bookstore for these now-public records isn't your cup of tea, I suggest you look for the next History Channel documentary on Pearl Harbor . Even the mainstream boob tube now reports this crime. Think about this for a minute: The U.S. president left over 1,000 of his own people to die so there would be an excuse, nay, a public demand to enter WWII. I will forgive you your 'paranoia' should you draw any parallels between this event and any more recent 'attacks on America .'
Another 'police action'
On Aug. 5, 1964 , the American public opened their newspapers to accounts of a Vietnamese 'torpedo attack' on the USS Maddox, a destroyer patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam . Capt. John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, sent a message to Washington explaining that there was no attack. A nervous sonar operator had picked up the sounds of his own crew and panicked, resulting in a lot of shadows being shot at. Despite having this knowledge, President Lyndon Johnson went on TV that night and announced bombing raids against North Vietnam in 'retaliation' for an attack that he knew never happened.
The smoking gun
The greatest evidence of the American State 's willingness to exploit the PRS is always its own words. Arguably the most sickening of these is the now-infamous Northwoods Document, made public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (which is being castrated thanks to Post-9/11 Statism Disorder. Again, 'who benefits?')
Conceived by the Joint Chiefs in the 1960s and bearing the written approval of each and every one of them, Project Northwoods was a plan to create popular support for an American war with Cuba . The idea was to launch a campaign of terrorism against Americans and blame it on Cuba . The Joint Chiefs called for (stop me when this starts to sound familiar): Sniper attacks against civilians in the streets, the sinking of boats carrying Cuban refugees, civilian airline hijackings and downings, the framing of Cuban immigrants for bombing attacks perpetrated by American agents, and 'a series of well-coordinated events' targeting U.S. Marines stationed at Guantanamo Bay.
One of the more creative ideas was to hope for (and exploit) a tragedy when astronaut John Glenn was to make a liftoff from Cape Canaveral , FL. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, 'the idea is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists, ET. Al. Cuba '
Here we see in its own words that the American State is both willing and able to manufacture false 'irrevocable evidence' in order to further its own agendas.
All of the historical references I've provided are a matter of public record and can be easily verified on the Internet and at your public library. Nevertheless, I encourage you to consider everything I've told you to be a lie ' until you get around to verifying these facts for yourself. Any time you're fed information, especially of a socio-political nature, and particularly when it comes from 'the media,' do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and consider it hogwash until you confirm or deny it for yourself. And always, always remember to ask yourself, in any given situation, 'Who benefits?'