From: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=fahren...

Last month, just four months before the 2004 presidential elections in
the U.S., film producer, Michael Moore, released a feature-length
documentary film entitled Fahrenheit 911. It was a powerful
condemnation of the George W. Bush Administration with particular focus
on the U.S. war in Iraq. Moore compiled an amazing collection of video
clips showing Bush and key members of his Administration in off-guarded
moments and in situations where a lack of sincerity was glaringly
evident. The story that emerges shows the Bush family closely allied
with Saudi princes and the bin Ladin Family in business ventures that
profit from war production and from the vast oil reserves in the Middle
East. It hammers hard on the human suffering caused by a war, not to
destroy a terrorist stronghold, but to gain access to oil resources and
provide lucrative government contracts. Moore's creative talent was
applied with precision and resulted in what may become a new genre of
political filmmaking. The effect was devastating to Bush and his
supporters who were left with little defense except to claim that the
production was biased and that certain statements were not correct.

This is my analysis of Fahrenheit 911.

1. The program is biased, and certain statements are not entirely correct, but every important fact it portrays is true.

2. In addition to profits from oil resources and government war
contracts, there is a second motive that also drives U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is the creation of a New
World Order based on the model of collectivism, and it is supported
with equal vigor by leaders of both major political parties. Mr. Bush
and his team are deeply committed to that goal. [For an in-depth
examination of this agenda, see The Future Is Calling in the Issues
section of the Freedom Force web site, http://www.freedom-force.org.]
Fahrenheit 911 gives no attention to that agenda and even goes so far
as to claim that it plays no role in these events. That theme was
advanced in a statement from one of the on-camera experts who said,
"This has nothing to do with conspiracies or political agendas. It's
all about oil and making money."
http://i.am/jah/300.htm

3. Omission of this bi-partisan political agenda makes it possible
to deliver the message that America's problems in the Middle East are
caused by greedy, war-mongering Republicans who are in power and that
the obvious solution is to replace them with humanitarian, peace-loving
Democrats. This message was implied throughout the film, but it broke
through in clear language when a young soldier said, "I used to be a
Republican, but when I get back home, I'm going to work hard to get
Democrats elected." If the film had acknowledged the New World Order
agenda of the Bush Administration, it would have led to the fact that
leaders of the Democrat Party, including its presidential candidate
John Kerry, share the same vision, and the partisan message would not
have been possible.

4. The carefully crafted content of the film and the timing of its
release make it clear that it was conceived as a covert campaign tool
for the Democrat Party and the John Kerry campaign. It follows what I
call the Quigley Formula, based on the strategy advocated by Professor
Carroll Quigley, President Clinton's mentor when he was a student at
Georgetown University. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley explained
the value of allowing people to believe that, by choosing between the
Democrat and Republican parties, they are determining their own
political destiny. To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary
illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of
state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so
different at election time but not so different afterward, listen
carefully to Quigley's approving overview of American politics:

The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the
Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the
scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost
identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed
as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war
cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument
that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one,
perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea
acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the
two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
"throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound
or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time
corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be
possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with
new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Carroll Quigley,
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York:
Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]

Inevitably, the mind turns to the question: Was this the intention of
Michael Moore? My opinion - no, that is too strong a word - my
suspicion is that Moore probably was not consciously implementing the
Quigley Formula. However, there are powerful economic factors that
would have compelled him to follow it in any event. Anyone who has done
as much research into this matter as he has must have come across
voluminous information about the political agenda. However, if any of
it had appeared in his film, it would have been unacceptable to the
Democrat Party. Without the enthusiastic support of that powerful
sector, there would have been small chance for film distribution and
even less for box-office success.

Many people want simple solutions for political problems. They are not
interested in complexities. When confronted with the fact that both
major parties are committed to the same agenda, their reaction is: "OK,
but who ya gonna vote for?" That, of course, reveals that they don't
really understand the Quigley Formula. They honestly believe that their
vote for one of the two major presidential candidates makes a
difference. This simplifies things a lot for them, because all the
complex issues can be boiled down into just one decision: "Who ya gonna
vote for?"
http://i.am/jah/democra.htm

In the real world, things are not that simple. First, presidents are
not yet absolute monarchs, although that clearly is the trend. Their
power still can be curtailed by Congress. We may not have much
influence in the election of a president, but we can, with sufficient
effort at the precinct level, have significant effect on the outcome of
Congressional races.
http://i.am/jah/britmon.htm

Second,
there are candidates from other parties who may be worthy of our
support. "But he can't win," is the common response. My reply is so
what? Elections are not football pools in which the object is to win a
bet. The purpose of an election is, not to pick winners, but to support
candidates who reflect our political philosophy. Even if a candidate
does not win, the size of his vote is a visible measure of the number
of people who support his philosophy, and that can become an important
element in shaping public policy. There is no virtue in voting for a
winner if he is a collectivist dedicated to our enslavement.

http://i.am/jah/syst.htm

Casting
votes and working for candidates, as important as those activities are,
represent merely the entry-level of political activism. As long as
candidates and issues are chosen by collectivists, there is no hope for
meaningful reform. The real action lies in participating in the process
that selects the candidates and defines the issues. This is possible
only by seeking influence and leadership in political parties,
government agencies, educational institutions, media organizations, and
other power centers of society. That is the mission of Freedom Force
International.
http://i.am/jah/socio.htm

The political agenda omitted from Fahrenheit 911 is revealed in these books and videos, available from the Reality Zone:

Hope - A History of the World in Our Time, by Professor Carroll Quigley

This is the book that blows the lid off the secret organization
created by Cecil Rhodes to quietly gain control over the nations of the
world and establish a global government based on the model of
collectivism. (More at http://www.realityzone.com/tragedy.html)

The Anglo-American Establishment
by Professor Carroll Quigley
"… What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills
left his fortune to form a secret society, … . And what does not seem
to be known to anyone is that this secret society … continues to exist
to this day." (More at http://www.realityzone.com/aae.html)

WASHINGTON
- The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the
USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the
Bush administration. "Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission
report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House
have not made a compelling case for either the administration's
obsession with secrecy or its Patriot Act," said Anthony D. Romero,
ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a
wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the
Patriot Act." CLIP

http://100777.com/node/893



 

Popularity:   message viewed 1992 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=978093

<< Return to the standard message view