Are you free?
In the U.S. we cherish our so called freedoms, but how often do we stop to consider what these freedoms are and whether, collectively, they raise us to a higher standard of freedom than the rest of the world?
Granted, the U.S. Constitution is a unique document in the liberties it delimits to the population, but freedom is a broad term with many dimensions. It is important for us to assess the complexity of this term so as to prevent it from becoming a cliché, or worthless word used to unify masses through vague projections of what it stands for.
So what is freedom?
Is it freedom to act as you will? To be entitled to ownership of property? Who is free? Who isn’t free? After asking a multitude of questions such as the above, it will become clear that the ‘liberty’ we ostensibly enjoy in the U.S. is only relative freedom – relative, that is, to the rest of the world’s inhabitants.
The foundations of our Constitution were derived in the minds of those who were oppressed by tyrants. It was their dream to establish a nation governed by the people, a democratic republic. This original idea was noble and well-meaning, but in the 21st century it stands to be argued that the seminal notion of our republic is no longer a reality – if it ever was. Take for example the documented fact that the will of the people is not supported by our political representatives – a contradiction to the founding values of the nation.
“ A Princeton promulgated study has confirmed the reality of socioeconomic status as the most significant factor in determination of U.S. policy decisions as well as the enactment of criminal law.
Published in the Journal of Perspectives on Politics (2014) titled ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens’, this study was conducted with the objective of understanding the distribution of power in politics between average citizens (commoners), interest groups, economic elites, and mass citizen groups while simultaneously testing which political theory held true in American politics out of the following:
- Majoritarian Electoral Democracy
- Economic-elite Domination
- Majoritarian Pluralism
- Biased Pluralism
The study team’s methods for achieving the stated aims consisted of a statistical analysis of 1,779 surveys of the years 1981-2002 which solicited a for/against response of the citizen to a proposed U.S. policy. The data obtained were then broken down into an income distribution model that reflected the relative wealth of the respondents in all 1,779 surveys, ranging from the very poor to the highly affluent. So what were the results?
Though the affluent top 10% of the income distribution model made only $146,000 a year, it was uncovered that a significant correlation exists between U.S. policy decisions and the top 10% income earners. Therefore the authors of the study suggest that the imprecision of their affluent category representing true economic elites likely underestimates the impact of elite preferences on U.S. policy. 3
In conclusion of the study, the authors state that the statistically average citizen has negligible to no impact on U.S. policy decisions in comparison to the preferences of economic elites and/or corporate interest groups who enjoy a major influence on U.S. policy:
‘Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent inﬂuence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination…’4
And so the idea that money speaks in American politics more than democratic principles is not without basis, but rather confirmed by researchers of the prestigious Princeton University.
What we may also derive from this study is the inference that men and women worth millions to billions of dollars can and do control, to a substantial degree, the politics of our nation.”
Another notion to consider in relation to the current vitals of our republic is the function of a law. In the most basic analysis of a law, it may be determined that its enactment is restrictive of human freedom and a regulator of conduct. Therefore, to enslave the masses requires a mediator in the regulation of the desired mass conduct. This regulator dictates the definition of crime. And so let us ask, what is crime?
“Up until this time, the prevailing definition of crime was that a criminal was someone who committed criminal acts, and these occurred when someone broke the law. The difficulty for this faultlessly logical definition occurs when the law itself is questioned. Who decides what is a law, and when it has been broken?”1
Without the analysis of premises which support the enactment of our laws, it cannot be said that our justice system is indeed just. Jones goes on to explain that one criminology perspective asserts the notion that legal definitions are constructed with the intent of protecting those with wealth and sociopolitical power. This perspective finds,
“the major structures of the criminal justice system – the prisons, the courts and the police services –are really about controlling the behavior of the masses and maintaining the status quo (with all its inequalities of wealth)”2
Pertinent here is the mention of a prestigious professor who told of the recurrent plans of inducing economic chaos for the gain of control over our nation.
In 1966, a man known as Professor Carroll Quigley, a historian and former consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, published a massive 1300 page tome that authenticated the existence of a shadowy group which aspires to attain global control via manipulation of systems of national finance.
Under a heading in his book “The Money Power Seeks to Create World System of Financial Control in Private Hands Able to Dominate Every Nation on Earth”, Quigley enunciates of the conspiratorial group’s motivations directly. He comments that:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”5
In substantiating Quigley’s assertion that this system of world government through financial control is to be arrived at through secret meetings which implies the necessity of blanking out proceedings from the media, the NWO affiliate of the Bilderberg Group, David Rockefeller, reportedly stated in 1991:
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.”6
What is even more interesting and substantive of what David Rockefeller has stated, is the content of 990 tax forms which represent financial contributions to American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.These forms list The Washington Post as a financial donor to the group, whose contribution in 2009 totaled $25,000.7
This blatantly suggests, of course, that the Washington Post has cooperated with the Bilderberg Group’s conference preferences of media inattention. So tell me, do you really think there is nothing to notions of aristocratic/elitist hegemony of the world’s populations?
Anyway, this post was meant to convey the sentiment that “freedom” is not as it should be in the U.S. For those who are alleged patriots, let it be known that the word ‘freedom’ is not in parity with the original ideals of this nation.
- Jones, D. (2008). Understanding Criminal Behavior. p.xvi
- Gilens, M.; Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Journal of Perspectives on Politics. p.569
- Ibid. p.564
- Quigley, C. (1966). Tragedy and Hope. p.277-278
This post was concocted from a previous post titled ‘They Don’t Speak for You’