This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

While there's a lot of things that are correct in that film, it shares the same fundamental flaw as the money "The Money Masters".

Basically, it glorifies all that is "public", and condem what is "private".

Notice that each time the politicians pass bad laws and expropriate the people, they always somehow blame the bank cartel "crave" for power, and not the politicians themselves! Even the gold confiscation of 1933 isn't blamed on Roosevelt.

In generally, those people are opposed to the FED not so much because it's a central bank, but because they somewhat consider it a private organization.

Often you hear them advocating "interest free" money (Benjamin Franklin style) issue by the state as their proposals.

In my views, those people are primitivo-socialists that do more harm than good to the cause of liberty.
 

"While there's a lot of things that are correct in that film"

Please elaborate.
 

"Someone whose opinion I respect told me to watch this movie."

Now who could that be? Lyndon LaRouche?
 

I believe this movie does an excellent job of exposing the real war or struggle this country has been involved in since its inception. Namely the fight for an honest monetary policy... which many cite as the main cause of the Revolutionary War as well as the fight for our civil liberties and independence. Our forefathers were brilliant and established our constitution to restrict the government for our own benefit and many of the same people of the time were very skeptical of a central bank (with good reason). The bottom line is that the power brokers of the time were eventually able to establish a central banking system and a fiat currency along with the income tax which is arguably unconstitutional. Ultimately the elite have concentrated the wealth and power of the nation and beyond by means of manipulation and duress with the inevitable goal of globalization. Not the globalization that is sold to the general public regarding a collective utopianism where we all share and lean on each other (since we are so obviously co-dependant) but more so an extreme concentration of political and economic power or resources. It is clear to see with a little research or even insight or common sense that through lobbying the corporatocracy (huge multinational corporations with economic output greater than many countries) are the true emperors of the world. At the very least the quotes or speeches from the likes of JFK regarding conspiracy and secret societies or president Woodrow Wilson's regret letter after realizing he ruined his country by signing away our right to print currency to the elite power brokers of the time or the warnings from Thomas Jefferson and others about the dangers of central banking should at least provoke intense thought. It is very easy to see the reality of globalism being nothing more than a ridiculous concentration of economic and political power. Research on the trilateral commission, NAFTA, and the council on foreign relations as well as the world bank and IMF paint a clear path to concentrated global power and a very possible threat of a concentrated global fascist dictatorship as well as an obvious loss of sovereignty and liberties for the United States as well as other countries. I will end with a quote from David Rockefeller authored in his autobiography “Memoirs” wherein, on page 405," Mr. Rockefeller writes: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." This quote however was not taken from the movie in question. Try to Consider the possibilities with an open mind.

Thanks for your time.
 

A quote from the movie that explains what it is about:

"Globalism, essentially, is the desire for one world government, one world military, one world economy. Which, on a broad philosophical basis, may not be that bad. But, the problem is, is it, we are being pushed in globalism by secrecy and by deceit and nobody's got a chance to actually consider the ramifications or consider the methodology that is being used to push us into this globalism."

See, they are not against globalism or collectivism per se, just against 'secret' collectivism. Democratic collectivism is just fine and dandy for those primitivo-socialists.
 

Frankly the Iranians would be mad NOT to want nukes. Look at their strategic neighborhood. To the north, Russia (nuclear armed), it occupied northern Iran during WW2.

To the east, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. One basket case and two nuclear powers. To the north east, China. Nukes again.

West, well Israel is over there and they have a nuclear arsenal too. Iraq is west too and it wasn't too long ago that the Iraqis were playing with missiles and poison gas. And didn't the Israelis think Iraqi nuclear ambitions were serious enough a threat for them to launch air strikes at the Iraqi nuclear research facility? Iraq may be under US occupation now, but how long will that last and would you bet on 'democracy' surviving there (say) a decade after US withdrawl? Will it be replaced by Saddam II?

Then there are assorted American forces to their east, west and south, ...and those guys have never interfered in Iranians internal affairs. Oh, oops. And those yanquis not only invented nukes, they are the only power that has ever used them. They have "form".

No wonder Iran's "nuclear ambitions" began under the old regime of the (USA friendly) Shah. The current "Islamic Republic" is (at least to some extent) reflecting the same geopolitical view as their predecessor. It's a bit like Obama continuing at least some of Bush's foreign policies.

Frankly it's amazing the Iranian Islamic Republic has been so calm under the regional circumstances. Sure they have sponsored some not-very-nice guerilla type movements in the region, Hezbollah, that sort of thing. But the US sponsored the Contras not long ago (at least for me), when it's President thought Nicaragua (I'm not kidding!) was some sort of threat to America.

And should the Islamists get booted out by the twittering reformers, don't expect Iran to put all their "nuclear ambitions" on permanent hold.