Again.

and I agree. This is a something I wrote a few days ago on the same subject:

I've been thinking about some things.

For starters, after watching the movie Zeitgeist, it seems clear that the 9/11 Truth movement is just one section of an overall Truth movement that began back in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve (and the conspicuous murder of Louis McFadden via food poisoning). For those of you who haven't seen the movie, the Federal Reserve is a private bank that thereafter took control of the printing of the nation's currency and the setting of interest rates. Further, the movie introduces a significant amount of evidence to support the idea that the same powerful group of bankers then used that power to usurp control of our nations media and government, such that they basically control almost every significant lever of power in American society.

And so the scheme has gone:
control the money > control the media > control the people > control the government

But now we have the internet. In an extremely short period of time the traditional hegemony of the media has shifted to a position of substantially less control over information. The CNN's and FOX's are still broadcasting online the same managed information that is printed and shown on TV, except now consumers have a real choice in where they decide to get their information online. That access, in turn, is leading many people to the sort of awakening that each of us in this group has experienced in one fashion or other. And in turn, that information is leading those people (us) to awaken and organize others, in a process that is only destined to snowball and increasingly undermine the traditional scheme utilized by the powerful cabal.

And thus we arrive at the question: Why would they let this happen? If they have so much money and power, why allow the internet, which is an obvious threat, rise to such prominence?

Since we don't know the answer, let's look at both possibilites:
1) It was allowed to happen.
2) It was resisted, but emerged outside the traditional methods of control (and was perhaps vastly underestimated in both it's influence and speed of development).

To assume the first is to assume that they are so confident in their ability to control the public that they are not at all worried about a portion of the population finding out the truth. But does that make sense? Even if enough people still support the fictitious war on terror, isn't it extremely counterproductive to unleash the fury of even a small portion of the population? And isn't it all the more counterproductive considering our substantial ability to communicate with others and grow in numbers? For these reasons, although I maintain it's possible for number one to be the case, I find it extremely hard to believe.

What makes more sense to me is explanation number 2, which is that they were taken somewhat by surprise with the internet, and now suddenly find themselves confronted with a serious threat to their traditional scheme of population control. And while it's true that efforts have been made to curtail our freedoms online (net nuetrality comes to mind), it's difficult to envision a scenario in which they will be able to stop the rampant sharing of information that comprises the very essence of our new technologies. For example, even if net neutrality passes, we will still have email, and cell phones, and the ability to post video's within social networking sites, and youtube, etc... Are we suggesting that they're gonna ban whole genre's of truth from youtube? Wouldn't that just attract more attention to that subject? And wouldn't new channels of communcation open up in response to the censorship?

Regardless, the emergence of the internet poses a serious threat to the age old scheme of population manipulation. With the awakening of each new American, the power of the myth weakens just a little bit, and the power of the elite comes under greater scrutiny. So what does that mean moving forward? Unfortunately these are not the types of people to roll over, so they may be forced to undertake increasingly extreme measures to maintain their grip on power. Perhaps one example of this is the presidential directive that was just issued by Bush allowing for essentially dictatorial powers in the event of an "emergency." Ironically, it would seem the success of our movement only moves the cabal further into a corner, inviting a more extreme and catastrophic action.

And yet, maybe it's already to late for them. With such a large new portion of the population cognizant of the potential for false flag terrorism, maybe the traditional scheme is no longer viable. Even if a new catastrophic event did occur, and Bush did assume dictatorial power and bypass elections, wouldn't that just invite a revolution by the American people to restore the constitution? In light of Goethe's quote, the one about how none are so enslaved as those who believe they are free, has not our awakening already spelled the end for this particular Zeitgeist?

:P

Please keep this in mind all the time:

1. Nobody can be 100 percent right on every issue, including 9-11. To me, what is really important about Dr. Paul is that he is OPEN to a new investigation of 9-11.

2. He said he doesn't support the idea that US government was behind the events of 9/11. But he didn't say that he supports the official story either. These two are very different.

3. Even if he believes in 9/11 truth, do not expect him to reveal it right now. He is running for the president and MSM will use any means to make him look like a fool. Even if he supports the 9/11 truth, he should not talk about it openly right now.

That is what I am thinking. Let me know if you think differently. We need to get together on these issues as soon as possible.

with your premis that, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's not corruption so much as just capitalism. But obviously that doesn't make it right, nor do I think it makes this moral depravity inevitable. My goal by exposing 9/11 is to restore an ethical compass to our capitalist system, and I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.

As for the unconditional basic income, I like that idea. Capitalism and caring are not mutually exclusive to me either, in fact, if you look at a country like a business, over time it would probably help to keep the employees happy.

-p